any questions?????
5dimes. you are making a BIG mistake. the prop is unclear at best. it is actually unintelligible. the man wagered $900 laying 3-1 and you don't want him as a customer? you are willing to throw him out the door and lose his action over an unclear prop?
think about what is best for business and pay the man back his funds that he wagered.
think about what is best for business and pay the man back his funds that he wagered.
5 dimes
I read this prop and your post 10 times and Im still not sure I understand the way you are grading this prop bet.
It is totally unclear at best. I would think that if you take Hopkins +.5 knockdowns that he won 1.5 to 0.
How could you take it any other way? You really are making a mistake here and you need to be fair about it.
I read this prop and your post 10 times and Im still not sure I understand the way you are grading this prop bet.
It is totally unclear at best. I would think that if you take Hopkins +.5 knockdowns that he won 1.5 to 0.
How could you take it any other way? You really are making a mistake here and you need to be fair about it.
So which side did you bet on Freak? You never say in your statement what you bet on, just that you bet the prop.
According to your statement, you had Oscar +.5 knockdowns at -240?
5dimes props can be confusing sometimes, but it seems pretty clear to me. You bet the wrong side and whether it is because you were confused or not is not an issue.
If you were unclear at all, you shouldn't have bet it.
5dimes has always been more than fair to just about everyone. I think if you are going to state your case, you are better off going somewhere they are an advertiser at.
According to your statement, you had Oscar +.5 knockdowns at -240?
5dimes props can be confusing sometimes, but it seems pretty clear to me. You bet the wrong side and whether it is because you were confused or not is not an issue.
If you were unclear at all, you shouldn't have bet it.
5dimes has always been more than fair to just about everyone. I think if you are going to state your case, you are better off going somewhere they are an advertiser at.
if he didn't call in to have it clarified, than he is in the wrong
5 dimes explained it right
I don't understand the confusion about this line..
TIMES HOPKINS KNOCKED DOWN "+1/2"
hopkins was knocked down ZERO times, so this stands at 0.5
TIMES OSCAR KNOCKED DOWN
Oscar was knocked down ONCE, so this stands at 1.
1 is greater than 0.5, so the OSCAR bet wins
as far as whether 5 dimes is doing the right thing, of course they are. If he didn't call in to get it explained, then he has no argument. Bullshit for anyone to give them a hassle about it. IMO this is a clear prop. If you have difficulty interpreting props, I would suggest avoiding them.
5 dimes explained it right
I don't understand the confusion about this line..
TIMES HOPKINS KNOCKED DOWN "+1/2"
hopkins was knocked down ZERO times, so this stands at 0.5
TIMES OSCAR KNOCKED DOWN
Oscar was knocked down ONCE, so this stands at 1.
1 is greater than 0.5, so the OSCAR bet wins
as far as whether 5 dimes is doing the right thing, of course they are. If he didn't call in to get it explained, then he has no argument. Bullshit for anyone to give them a hassle about it. IMO this is a clear prop. If you have difficulty interpreting props, I would suggest avoiding them.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IDENTITY:
cmon drunkguy. no one here other than you understands the prop. i think you are the only one. it would be in 5dimes' best business decision to give the man his money back. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
why? to keep a customer? I wouldn't be worried about keeping them if they came running to the forums posting about "stealing". Particularly if they made misleading (or outright false) statements regarding their call to customer service.
Better to run a solid book than to cater to everyone that feels they have been wronged. Making exceptions only encourages people to be careless and then to run to the forums expecting special treatment.
cmon drunkguy. no one here other than you understands the prop. i think you are the only one. it would be in 5dimes' best business decision to give the man his money back. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
why? to keep a customer? I wouldn't be worried about keeping them if they came running to the forums posting about "stealing". Particularly if they made misleading (or outright false) statements regarding their call to customer service.
Better to run a solid book than to cater to everyone that feels they have been wronged. Making exceptions only encourages people to be careless and then to run to the forums expecting special treatment.
BY 5 DIMES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the above statement by the customer was true, any statement by any member of the 5Dimes staff would be binding. However, on the taped recording of the phone call in question, the customer only requested (person to person) informaion. There were no transfers on the call from the customer service department to the wagering department. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all you must think, that we are all retarded to not be able to see through your small print B.S.
Second, How is a customer supposed to know to which department he is being transferred? So it is not valid if a customer gets wager information from customer service? Are you saying that your customer service staff is not trained to explain what a wager entails?
This is a piss poor decision in my opinion, by 5Dimes. Clearly they admit that the customer called and asked for wager guidance. However, they state that the customer got that information from the wrong department thus is not valid.
5Dimes, I consider your outfit just about as bad as some of the worst. Your decision in this matter, shows that you try to take advantage of your customers by posting confusing lines; Further, when the customer asks for guidance you give him/her false information and claim no responsibility when wagers are made based on that assistance.
You should be ashamed of yourselves!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the above statement by the customer was true, any statement by any member of the 5Dimes staff would be binding. However, on the taped recording of the phone call in question, the customer only requested (person to person) informaion. There were no transfers on the call from the customer service department to the wagering department. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all you must think, that we are all retarded to not be able to see through your small print B.S.
Second, How is a customer supposed to know to which department he is being transferred? So it is not valid if a customer gets wager information from customer service? Are you saying that your customer service staff is not trained to explain what a wager entails?
This is a piss poor decision in my opinion, by 5Dimes. Clearly they admit that the customer called and asked for wager guidance. However, they state that the customer got that information from the wrong department thus is not valid.
5Dimes, I consider your outfit just about as bad as some of the worst. Your decision in this matter, shows that you try to take advantage of your customers by posting confusing lines; Further, when the customer asks for guidance you give him/her false information and claim no responsibility when wagers are made based on that assistance.
You should be ashamed of yourselves!
baseballguy,
5dimes is claiming that this guy only called Customer Service to ask about transferring Money & only after the event was over did he ask for the prop to be explained....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If the above statement by the customer was true, any statement by any member of the 5Dimes staff would be binding. However, on the taped recording of the phone call in question, the customer only requested (person to person) informaion. There were no transfers on the call from the customer service department to the wagering department. There were no calls direct to wagering or transfers to wagering from this customer discussing this prop. The prop wager was placed on the Internet. Only after the prop was graded did the customer call to speak with the wagering department. At that time ONLY, did the customer ask to have the prop explained.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
5dimes is claiming that this guy only called Customer Service to ask about transferring Money & only after the event was over did he ask for the prop to be explained....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If the above statement by the customer was true, any statement by any member of the 5Dimes staff would be binding. However, on the taped recording of the phone call in question, the customer only requested (person to person) informaion. There were no transfers on the call from the customer service department to the wagering department. There were no calls direct to wagering or transfers to wagering from this customer discussing this prop. The prop wager was placed on the Internet. Only after the prop was graded did the customer call to speak with the wagering department. At that time ONLY, did the customer ask to have the prop explained.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
what he means about (person to person) information is Western Union...
5 Dimes is claiming the prop was not discussed till after the event is over...
IDENTITY... this is not cut & dry as you suggest... The customer may have a case... but there is no evidence one way or another wether the prop was discussed before the EVENT took place.
5 Dimes is claiming the prop was not discussed till after the event is over...
IDENTITY... this is not cut & dry as you suggest... The customer may have a case... but there is no evidence one way or another wether the prop was discussed before the EVENT took place.
Can someone explain this (honest question):
Why would Hopkins be a -210 favorite in the fight and a +210 underdog in knockdowns?
Maybe its just me but that seems very fishy. Wouldnt it be more approppriate if you had to lay -250 saying that Hopkins WOULD NOT get knocked out more than DLH?
This has me totally confused.
Why would Hopkins be a -210 favorite in the fight and a +210 underdog in knockdowns?
Maybe its just me but that seems very fishy. Wouldnt it be more approppriate if you had to lay -250 saying that Hopkins WOULD NOT get knocked out more than DLH?
This has me totally confused.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>5dimes is claiming that this guy only called Customer Service to ask about transferring Money & only after the event was over did he ask for the prop to be explained....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, he called and asked what the wager entailed. When he got that information he asked for western union info.
Cmon, can't you see what 5 dimes is trying to do?
You think boxing is that much of an idiot to wager 923.00 on a confusing prop without clarification. Hell you think anyone who posts here is that stupid?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, he called and asked what the wager entailed. When he got that information he asked for western union info.
Cmon, can't you see what 5 dimes is trying to do?
You think boxing is that much of an idiot to wager 923.00 on a confusing prop without clarification. Hell you think anyone who posts here is that stupid?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 5 dimes is saying that Hopkins WAS a -210 fav and they hung a prop saying Hopkins WAS a +210 dog to get more knockdowns.
Does that make sense? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No it doesnt make sense, just like 5 dimes decision in this matter.
Does that make sense? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No it doesnt make sense, just like 5 dimes decision in this matter.
Iden.
It greatly upsets me when I see a book insulting a customer when they come here for assistance.
5 dimes said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "In this case, 5Dimes will not tolerate being thrown into the forums on a lie."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So they basicly called him a liar. Even say he was lying, they shouldnt humiliate a customer in public like that.
For all we know poster boxing could bets thousands weekly. I.E he is a good customer. To put down a customer on top of making a terrible decision is horrible.
It greatly upsets me when I see a book insulting a customer when they come here for assistance.
5 dimes said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "In this case, 5Dimes will not tolerate being thrown into the forums on a lie."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So they basicly called him a liar. Even say he was lying, they shouldnt humiliate a customer in public like that.
For all we know poster boxing could bets thousands weekly. I.E he is a good customer. To put down a customer on top of making a terrible decision is horrible.
It is true that they were giving + 210 on something that was more likely to happen...
HOWEVER...
If neither of them had been knocked down (WHICH WAS MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN)
or if they each had been knocked down an equal number of times... The other side of the prop would have won... so this somewhat explains the + 210...
It is fishy wording though, that is for sure...
As for wether or not B F spoke to a clerk about the prop or simply about Western Union, that I do not know....
5DIMES should have to produce the tapes.... although I guess what they are saying is calls to customer service (not wagering) do not get taped? I dont know?
HOWEVER...
If neither of them had been knocked down (WHICH WAS MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN)
or if they each had been knocked down an equal number of times... The other side of the prop would have won... so this somewhat explains the + 210...
It is fishy wording though, that is for sure...
As for wether or not B F spoke to a clerk about the prop or simply about Western Union, that I do not know....
5DIMES should have to produce the tapes.... although I guess what they are saying is calls to customer service (not wagering) do not get taped? I dont know?
